Statewide Investment Hubs · 2019. 10. 14. · 0.0%. 0.5%. 1.0%. 1.5%. 2.0%. Decline across the...
20
STATEWIDE INVESTMENT HUBS A new concept in regionalism.
Transcript of Statewide Investment Hubs · 2019. 10. 14. · 0.0%. 0.5%. 1.0%. 1.5%. 2.0%. Decline across the...
STATEWIDE INVESTMENT HUBS
A new concept in regionalism.
POPULATION/WORKFORCE
2011 – 2016 Population Change • Austin 15.5%
• Raleigh 12.0%
• Nashville 9.8%
• Denver 9.7%
• Columbus 6.0%
• Indianapolis 4.9%
• Milwaukee 1.6%
• Pittsburgh -0.7%
Low IN birth rate
Declining birth rate
Over dependence on IL, OH, MI
Not Terrible
2015 to 2016 change and rankings
• Nashville 4.0%, 6th
• Austin 3.8%, 7rd
• Raleigh 3.7%, 10th
• Denver 2.6%, 37th
• Indy 2.5%, 40th
• Columbus 2.5%, 44th
• Milwaukee 0.8%, 87th
• Pittsburgh 0.1%, 95th
JOB GROWTH – INDY MSA
$35,620 $36,030 $36,870 $37,490 $37,490 $37,570 $37,800
$42,140
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
MSA Median Wage 2016
2016 US Median
BUT WAGES ARE LOW, GROWTH SLOW
Only Nashville is lower
But their wages are growing twice as fast
2006 to 2016 change and rankings• Raleigh 13.0%, 4th
• Pittsburgh 12.0%, 7th
• Columbus 8.6%, 34th
• Denver 8.0%, 36th
• Nashville 7.7%, 40th
• Austin 7.3%, 43rd
• Milwaukee 4.6%, 75th
• Indy 3.6%, 85th
$119,961 $121,884
$127,758
$133,471 $134,107 $136,176
$139,851
$139,892
$105,000
$110,000
$115,000
$120,000
$125,000
$130,000
$135,000
$140,000
$145,000
MSA GMP Per Worker 2016
2016 Average
MSA PRODUCTIVITY
Competitive, but growing most slowly Why low wages when productivity is average?
2006 – 2016 Change in Total GMP• Pittsburgh +22.5%, 1st
• Nashville 9.9%, 14th
• Austin 8.4%, 21st
• Columbus 6.3%, 34th
• Denver 5.0%, 42nd
• Milwaukee 3.6%, 52nd
• Raleigh 3.6%, 53rd
• Indianapolis +2.7%, 60th
0.2%
1.2%
3.7% 3.9% 4.2% 4.3%
7.5%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
Columbus Nashville Indy MSA Raleigh Denver Pittsburgh Austin
MSA Job Growth at Young Firms 15-16
MSA ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Jobs at young firms (age 5)• Low and losing ground
• Recent year a bit better
2006 to 2016 change and rankings
• Austin 36.0%, 1st
• Denver 5.0%, 5th
• Nashville. -1.7%, 13th
• Raleigh -6.9%, 19th
• Columbus -7.4%, 21st
• Milwaukee -10.3%, 26th
• Indianapolis -17.9%, 53rd
• Pittsburgh -28.5%, 79th
(3,945)(2,642) (561) (330) (157) (47)
617
6,099
(6,000)
(4,000)
(2,000)
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Milwaukee Denver Pittsburgh Raleigh Indianapolis Nashville Columbus Austin
Information Technology/Analytical Instruments ClusterChange in Jobs 2010 to 2015
MSA TECH CLUSTER
Total Jobs in cluster 2015
• Austin 22,869
• Pittsburgh 10,925
• Milwaukee 9,623
• Raleigh 9,509
• Denver 6,967
• Indianapolis 4,644
• Columbus 3,869
• Nashville 2,164
Poverty Not HSDenver -19.1% 0.7%Austin -17.4% 4.4%Pittsburgh -14.9% -20.9%Nashville -8.6% -1.0%Raleigh -8.6% -14.0%Columbus 0.9% 0.1%Milwaukee 3.4% 8.3%Indianapolis 6.3% 4.3%
9.4%10.0%
10.8% 10.9%11.6%
13.3%
14.2%15.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
Denver Raleigh Pittsburgh Austin Nashville Indianapolis Columbus Milwaukee
2016 Poverty Rate
MSA US
POVERTY IN MSA
High and growing fastest
From 2011 to 2016
Number of People
Why are we trailing when we have so much success?
• Revenue deficit• City of Indianapolis $1,041 per capita
• Per capita for other core cities $1,553
• Annual gap $460.7m$1,041
$1,339 $1,371 $1,447
$1,561
$1,716 $1,788
$2,074
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Indianapoliscity
Austin Nashville Milwaukee Columbus Denver Raleigh Pittsburgh
Total per Capita Revenue 2016 CAFR
City Aggregate per Capita
Why are we trailing, when we have so much success?
• Finance deficit• Fishers $290 per capita
• Greenwood $389 per capita
• Per capita for other regions’ suburbs $1,270
• Annual gap Fishers $26m
• Annual gap Greenwood $22m
$857 $880 $925 $980 $1,029 $1,122
$1,267 $1,315 $1,482 $1,504
$2,627
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Total per Capita Revenue 2016 CAFR
City Aggregate per Capita
POPULATION
6.8%
1.0%
3.8%1.6%
4.0%5.0%
0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%
Population Change 2013 - 2016
Metro Average
-0.3%
1.1%
-0.1%-0.4%
-0.2%
1.7%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Decline across the board Low current IN birth rate Declining overall birth rate Over dependence on IL, OH, MI for growth Rankings compared to peer metros NWI: 6/6 South Bend: 6/6 (.4%) Ft. Wayne: 6/6 (1.8%) Indianapolis: 6/8 (4.9%) Evansville: 6/6 (1%) Jasper-Huntingburg [micro]: 7/8 (0.0%)
TALENTworkforce with BA or more
31.2%38.2%
27.3%34.3%
28.9%36.9%
0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%
Boise Des Moines Fort Wayne GrandRapids
Greenville,SC
Omaha
Metro Average
20.0%
39.3%
16.9%
42.6% 44.5%
20.0%
31.7%
16.2%
0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%
Ashland Boone Danville Durango Edwards Jasper Rexburg Tiffin
Percent with BA or more 2016
Metro Average
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rankings compared to peer metros NWI: 6/6 (Grew 3.1%) South Bend: 4/6 Grew 2.1% from 2013-16 Ft. Wayne: 6/6 Grew 4.7% from 2013-16 Indianapolis: 6/8 Grew 24.5% from 2013-16 Evansville: 5/6 Grew 1.4% from 2013-16 Jasper-Huntingburg [micro]: 6/8 Grew 1.5% from 2013-16
JOB GROWTH
2.4%
5.3%4.2%
0.8% 1.2%
3.5%
0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%
Job Growth 2014 - 2017
Metro Average
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Not Terrible Rankings compared to peer metros NWI: 6/6 .2% growth South Bend: 4/6 No growth from 2016-17 Ft. Wayne: 6/6 .9% growth from 2016-17 Indianapolis: 5/8 2.5% growth from 2016-17 Evansville: 6/6 1.1% growth from 2016-17 Jasper-Huntingburg [micro]: 6/8 .6% growth from 2016-17
BUT WAGES ARE LOW, GROWTH SLOW
$45,650
$51,674
$47,004 $45,246
$43,696
$47,573
$38,000 $40,000 $42,000 $44,000 $46,000 $48,000 $50,000 $52,000 $54,000
Appleton CedarRapids
GrandRapids
Lancaster South Bend York
2017 Wages
Metro Averge
$35,620 $36,030 $36,870 $37,490 $37,490 $37,570 $37,800 $42,140
$- $5,000
$10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000
2016 US Median
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rankings compared to peer metros NWI: 6/6 South Bend: 6/6 Ranks 4th for growth (7.9% from 2014-17) Ft. Wayne: 5/6 Ranks 4th for growth (8% from 2014-17) Indianapolis: 7/8 Ranks 8th for growth (3.6% from 2014-17) Evansville: 3/6 Ranks 5th for growth (7.3% from 2014-17) Jasper-Huntingburg [micro]: 3/8 Ranks 5th for growth (5.7% from 2014-17
MSA ENTREPRENEURSHIPjob growth at young firms <5
21.4%
10.3%
-2.4%
40.1%
4.4%11.2%
-5.0%0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%
9.0%
-14.2%
-0.2%
2.0%
0.0%
15%
-20.0%-15.0%-10.0%
-5.0%0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%
Metro Average
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rankings compared to peer metros NWI: 2/6 South Bend: 5/6 3/6 for jobs at firm <5 years (28.4%) Ft. Wayne: 6/6 6/6 for jobs at firm <5 years (27.6%) Indianapolis: 6/8 Lost 17.9% from 2006 to 2016 Evansville: 6/6 5/6 for jobs at firm <5 years (26.6%) Jasper-Huntingburg [micro]: 8/8 5/8 for jobs at firm <5 years (40%)
POVERTY
8.4% 9.4%
13.4%10.8%
17.2%
10.5%
0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%
10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%18.0%20.0%
Appleton CedarRapids
GrandRapids
Lancaster South Bend York
Metro Average
9.4%10.0%
10.8% 10.9%11.6%
13.3%14.2%
15.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
Presenter
Presentation Notes
High and growing fastest Rankings compared to peer metros NWI: 2/6 South Bend: 1/6 Slowed by .5% from 2013-16 Ft. Wayne: 3/6 No change from 2013-16 Indianapolis: 3/8 Grew 6.3% from 2011-16 Evansville: 4/6 Slowed by .8% from 2013-16 Jasper-Huntingburg [micro]: 7/8 Grew by 5.2% from 2013-16
TWO CHALLENGES
Annual budget deficit = less investment in local operations
Annual budget deficit = no ability to make inter-jurisdictional transformative infrastructure investment
We need to tackle both
work together to invest in inter-municipal assets / amenities
Work together to address annual deficits which prevent us from investing in local capital infrastructure
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
STATEWIDE INVESTMENT HUBS
Enabling Legislation
Provides metropolitan areas the ability to collaborate and marshal its collective resources toward transformative capital projects
Provides metropolitan areas access to new revenue sources
Provides flexibility for each metropolitan area to decide the best tax policy for its residents
Provides a structure for ongoing systemic regional collaboration
